Energy Twattery

[Borin' Baggie]

If Centrica (and shareholders) get penalised for an upstream profit of £1.3bn in the first six months of this year, do Centrica (and shareholeders) get a bonus from the government for the £577 million full year loss last year or the £1.1 billion loss the year before? Context matters.

You mean like how Centrica (and shareholders), and other upstream companies (and their shareholders) were provided tax cuts in 2015-2016 to cover their upstream losses due to the drop in oil and gas prices?

I agree, context does matter and the context you provided is irrelevant at the moment. When it becomes relevant then they can do something like the above. Right now we need to cover the downstream losses and their effects on consumers.

[Protheroe]

Yes, we do. But we also need to ensure and encourage investment in exploration and exploitation of gas reserves and in investment alternative fuels / power. A Windfall Tax does neither.

The acute situation we're in is not going away for years. You don't treat a burn on your hand by chopping your arm off.

[Borin' Baggie]

You invest in exploration and expansion of gas reserves, you have less profits, effect of the windfall tax is lessened (as it is a tax on profits as a result of unearned income caused by the effect of a war on gas price volatility). That's your incentive.

Simple, no chopping anyone's arms off. I'd have expected the people who hero-worship Thatcher to go along with the exact thing she did in 1982.

[Derek Hardballs]

I think Derek may need to reconsider his mantra of "simple politics".

There you go bringing me into the conversation again.

You never said what you do? Nothing? You think what we have done is enough?

You brought it up, FFS sake, and Proth has replied with a very current example of why it wouldn't work! 

When you were happily spouting about how the French have got it all right I said I would be happy with targeted support and not to mess with markets. Of course, I didn't expect you read it.

I posted what the French were doing to help their population. Now leaned fellows like your good self and Proth don’t think it will work, but may I remind you that at the time of posting the reply, the chancellor and PM were on holiday (yes another one) and the two candidates for PM were squabbling up and down the country in front of a very teeny tiny percent of the population. One was implying that he redirected money to places like Tumbridge Wells from deprived urban areas and the other one was trying to furiously reverse from saying civil servants should take a pay cut to mirror the area they worked (levelling down) despite her own press release stating otherwise. 

All we heard from the government were the packages they have already sanctioned but won’t touch the sides of the problem. Tax cuts that won’t help the poorest or some cuts to VAT etc. Things have moved on a little since then but that’s where we were with our plans compared to France. Now Proth might be right and France have it all wrong, but his record isn’t that great politically over the last ten years so I shall wait and see. Either way Proth will proclaim he was right if we get it right or if we get it wrong we failed to do it his way. Twas ever thus. 

Btw if he does get it wrong then I will also be proven incorrect as I think further targeted support is needed and Truss’s tax cuts will exasperate the problems. The only difference I suspect will be who pays and how that will work and to whom the help goes to. 

What are your thoughts?

[Fido]

I think Derek may need to reconsider his mantra of "simple politics".

There you go bringing me into the conversation again.

You never said what you do? Nothing? You think what we have done is enough?

You brought it up, FFS sake, and Proth has replied with a very current example of why it wouldn't work! 

When you were happily spouting about how the French have got it all right I said I would be happy with targeted support and not to mess with markets. Of course, I didn't expect you read it.

I posted what the French were doing to help their population. Now leaned fellows like your good self and Proth don’t think it will work, but may I remind you that at the time of posting the reply, the chancellor and PM were on holiday (yes another one) and the two candidates for PM were squabbling up and down the country in front of a very teeny tiny percent of the population. One was implying that he redirected money to places like Tumbridge Wells from deprived urban areas and the other one was trying to furiously reverse from saying civil servants should take a pay cut to mirror the area they worked (levelling down) despite her own press release stating otherwise. 

All we heard from the government were the packages they have already sanctioned but won’t touch the sides of the problem. Tax cuts that won’t help the poorest or some cuts to VAT etc. Things have moved on a little since then but that’s where we were with our plans compared to France. Now Proth might be right and France have it all wrong, but his record isn’t that great politically over the last ten years so I shall wait and see. Either way Proth will proclaim he was right if we get it right or if we get it wrong we failed to do it his way. Twas ever thus. 

Btw if he does get it wrong then I will also be proven incorrect as I think further targeted support is needed and Truss’s tax cuts will exasperate the problems. The only difference I suspect will be who pays and how that will work and to whom the help goes to. 

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that you just posted something without thinking and have been called out on it. And added in a load of other stuff for good measure, as is your wont.

[Derek Hardballs]

I think Derek may need to reconsider his mantra of "simple politics".

There you go bringing me into the conversation again.

You never said what you do? Nothing? You think what we have done is enough?

You brought it up, FFS sake, and Proth has replied with a very current example of why it wouldn't work! 

When you were happily spouting about how the French have got it all right I said I would be happy with targeted support and not to mess with markets. Of course, I didn't expect you read it.

I posted what the French were doing to help their population. Now leaned fellows like your good self and Proth don’t think it will work, but may I remind you that at the time of posting the reply, the chancellor and PM were on holiday (yes another one) and the two candidates for PM were squabbling up and down the country in front of a very teeny tiny percent of the population. One was implying that he redirected money to places like Tumbridge Wells from deprived urban areas and the other one was trying to furiously reverse from saying civil servants should take a pay cut to mirror the area they worked (levelling down) despite her own press release stating otherwise. 

All we heard from the government were the packages they have already sanctioned but won’t touch the sides of the problem. Tax cuts that won’t help the poorest or some cuts to VAT etc. Things have moved on a little since then but that’s where we were with our plans compared to France. Now Proth might be right and France have it all wrong, but his record isn’t that great politically over the last ten years so I shall wait and see. Either way Proth will proclaim he was right if we get it right or if we get it wrong we failed to do it his way. Twas ever thus. 

Btw if he does get it wrong then I will also be proven incorrect as I think further targeted support is needed and Truss’s tax cuts will exasperate the problems. The only difference I suspect will be who pays and how that will work and to whom the help goes to. 

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that you just posted something without thinking and have been called out on it. And added in a load of other stuff for good measure, as is your wont.

So you haven’t got any and you only really wanted to have a pop as usual. Getting quite the habit Fido do I owe you any rent?

[Protheroe]

It's a little unfair suggesting my record over the last ten years "isn't that great". I've consistently complained about elements of the government's programme that are coming home to roost now - particularly debt / borrowing, suppressed wages, suppressed interest rates, a lack of supply side influence on the housing market and of course a lack of investment in energy supply and security.

For several of these areas I've suggested how improvements could be made that don't involve ever more taxation (unlike you).

I think my own record actually stands up pretty well against the current government.

[Protheroe]

You invest in exploration and expansion of gas reserves, you have less profits, effect of the windfall tax is lessened (as it is a tax on profits as a result of unearned income caused by the effect of a war on gas price volatility). That's your incentive.

Simple, no chopping anyone's arms off. I'd have expected the people who hero-worship Thatcher to go along with the exact thing she did in 1982.

I’ll tell you what I’d do, probably with Dear Margaret’s blessing. I’d take the £400 that’s been offered to most of us on here that don’t need it and redirect to those who do in October. That would be Levelling Up.

[Borin' Baggie]

You invest in exploration and expansion of gas reserves, you have less profits, effect of the windfall tax is lessened (as it is a tax on profits as a result of unearned income caused by the effect of a war on gas price volatility). That's your incentive.

Simple, no chopping anyone's arms off. I'd have expected the people who hero-worship Thatcher to go along with the exact thing she did in 1982.

I’ll tell you what I’d do, probably with Dear Margaret’s blessing. I’d take the £400 that’s been offered to most of us on here that don’t need it and redirect to those who do in October. That would be Levelling Up.

The accepted cut off point for targeted support is 10%, looking at the estimated price cap from January that would put the cut off at a household income of £42,000 per year, that is £11k higher than the UK median household income from 2019. Realistically it will be lower because the cap is a maximum but through my best efforts at interpolation I'm still getting a cut off above the median, implying that the cut off point should cover over 50% of all UK households. I'm looking at the Tory party leadership and thinking the world's gone mad, zero scrutiny on that point and zero talk about the reality of the shitshow and the PM-elect thinks we're going to be able to tax cut our way out of this.

That £400 from those who can afford it really isn't going to go very far. It also does the square root of zero all for downstream markets. The maths just doesn't add up I'm afraid.

[Protheroe]

Ok. So let’s say 15 million households need help. 13 million x £400 is a good start. The rest can be found within the fiscal headroom that’s generally accepted we have. Alongside this we need an energy strategy that ensures investment occurs during market and profit peaks.

What also needs to be borne in mind is that BP shares are worth less than they were ten years ago. You’ll not encourage investment if returns are negated by government whim.

And the optics of transferring that £400 would be great in the red wall.